# Armed U.S. Citizens deterring a Russian nuclear attack **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 1, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591 "2012-11-01T17:19:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![trmptgn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@trmptgn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trmptgn)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/1 "2012-11-01T17:19:26Z")
I was reading a list about catalysts for WW3 on a popular list website recently and the author stated: “The Soviets explored over 300 scenarios involving different missile targets, location, timing, and speed of land invasions, including options for the final conquest of the United States, and claimed after 1991 that their only non-diplomatic deterrent to nuclear war was their inability to eradicate the United States’ armed civilian population. Carpet nuking the entire continent would ruin its natural resources.” I cannot find any information online to support the fact that the U.S. armed civilian population really deterred a nuclear attack. I could see it being a deterrent for an invasion, but again no evidence supports this that I can find. Has anyone heard of this before and can anyone provide any cites to published information supporting (or not supporting) this? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/2 "2012-11-01T17:28:58Z")
> [@trmptgn](#): > > I could see it being a deterrent for an invasion, but again no evidence supports this that I can find. Yeah, I haven’t seen any source that suggests that either Russia, or America post 1950, seriously planned a war of conquest against the other. In their plans for direct war against each other, they were mainly concerned with how to nuke the other guy first so they can’t nuke back. ---
**Author:** ![emoticorpse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/22d042/32.png) [@emoticorpse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emoticorpse)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/3 "2012-11-01T17:36:31Z")
Reading the text I take that “final conquest” and “land invasions” suggest ultimately they were planning on landing on American soil. Since carpet bombing was out of the question, they only planned on limited nuclear attacks and continuing with traditional warfare tactics (something like what the U.S. did to Hiroshima?). And in any case of them trying to take over by brute force by the 1991 the civilian population was already heavily “strapped” and from what I can tell we got some people in the States with the same firepower as the U.S. military. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/4 "2012-11-01T18:41:47Z")
While Sea/Land invasions have sometimes been successful, (see D-Day), they are very difficult. The D-Day invasion was only possible due to the short channel from a friendly UK where ships could be amassed and launched for a massive assault, to the nearby occupied Normandy. This would never have been possible if the staging area was New Jersey and the assault force had to cross the Atlantic. It is not as if the Russians would have massed tanks across the Canadian or Mexican border that could rapidliy invade like they could through the Fulda Gap in Gemany during the Cold War. They were going to need to bring their heavy equipment across the Pacific, Atlantic, or drop it by air. All unpractical. And when you get here, the US is the most heavily armed civilian population in the world, with 90 guns for every 100 people. 270 million firearms, and I imagine that number is a bit low. [http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828](http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/5 "2012-11-01T18:58:11Z")
The U.S. may have (or have had during the time in question) a lot of handguns, rifles, shotguns, and the like… But did we have discipline? Training? Organization? Who would have been the unit commanding officer and unit NCO? To whom do we report? Where? Who was going to provision us? We had guns; did we have radios? Against a real army? And after nuclear weapons had taken out our electricity and water? No, not even possible. Red Dawn was a stupid movie. The only defense would have been the nuclear counterstrike, annihilating their conventional military capabilities. They can’t mount an invasion when they’ve been bombed out of existence. MAD, yes. One side staving off the other using civilian weaponry? Laughable. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/6 "2012-11-01T19:06:21Z")
Agreed. Incidentally, _Red Dawn_ is being remade, with North Korea as the invading enemy. Yeah, that’s plausible. > ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/7 "2012-11-01T19:10:30Z")
It sounds like a 2nd Amendment propaganda article. > [@Trinopus](#): > > No, not even possible. Red Dawn was a stupid movie. Heeey, hey hey now. Easy, there. > [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Agreed. Incidentally, _Red Dawn_ is being remade, with North Korea as the invading enemy. > > Yeah, that’s plausible. > > [Red Dawn (2012 film) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn_(2012_film)) Now THAT’s going to be a stupid movie. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/8 "2012-11-01T19:11:18Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The U.S. may have (or have had during the time in question) a lot of handguns, rifles, shotguns, and the like… But did we have discipline? Training? Organization? Who would have been the unit commanding officer and unit NCO? To whom do we report? Where? Who was going to provision us? We had guns; did we have radios? > > Against a real army? > > And after nuclear weapons had taken out our electricity and water? > > No, not even possible. Red Dawn was a stupid movie. > > The only defense would have been the nuclear counterstrike, annihilating their conventional military capabilities. They can’t mount an invasion when they’ve been bombed out of existence. MAD, yes. One side staving off the other using civilian weaponry? Laughable. Insurgencies and resistance movement, guerilla warfare in general, have never been successful against invading armies. :dubious:I don’t know how many times I’ve mentioned this, lots of times in gun control threads for sure, but one more time won’t hurt. The goal of guerillas and insurgents fighting a “real” army that has tanks, helicopters, planes and such is never to engage that army on a battlefield. That is the army’s strength and you never attack your enemy’s strength. You attack his weakness. So, the insurgent uses his civilian arms and explosives to conduct assassinations, murders if you like that word better, among bureaucrats and their families. Among collaborators. Among occupying troops. Among police and their families. You don’t need to crush their army in the field. You just need to make the occupation so bloody, soul-destroyingly ugly, and expensive that they eventually declare victory and go home. Despite the fond beliefs of those who would eliminate possession of civilian arms, there are very few of us who are stupid enough to go out openly shooting at tanks, helicopter gunships, or squads of armed combat soldiers with our privately held arms. ---
**Author:** ![emoticorpse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/22d042/32.png) [@emoticorpse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emoticorpse)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/9 "2012-11-01T19:17:14Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The U.S. may have (or have had during the time in question) a lot of handguns, rifles, shotguns, and the like… But did we have discipline? Training? Organization? Who would have been the unit commanding officer and unit NCO? To whom do we report? Where? Who was going to provision us? We had guns; did we have radios? > > Against a real army? > > And after nuclear weapons had taken out our electricity and water? > > No, not even possible. Red Dawn was a stupid movie. I’d be surprised if you acknowledged the scenario in Iraq for the last 10 years. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/10 "2012-11-01T19:35:22Z")
> [@trmptgn](#): > > I cannot find any information online to support the fact that the U.S. armed civilian population really deterred a nuclear attack. I could see it being a deterrent for an invasion, but again no evidence supports this that I can find. > > Has anyone heard of this before and can anyone provide any cites to published information supporting (or not supporting) this? The Soviets were, in theory, prepared to [kill 50-100 million Americans in a nuclear war](http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-helfand.pdf) (link is a PDF,) while in turn the U.S. was ready to kill somewhere around [100 million of the total 217 million Soviet citizens in 1961](http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/u-s-war-plans-would-kill-an-estimated-108-million-soviets-104-million-chinese-and-2-3-million-poles-more-evidence-on-siop-62-and-the-origins-of-overkill/) (about 50% of the population.) The idea that anyone, after such an exchange, is worried about how many of the remaining citizens have shotguns or pistols is silly. The idea that nation-states could survive such casualty rates and remain functioning entities is questionable. The idea that one of the warring nation-states, not only survives the exchange, but then undertakes a transoceanic invasion of scale greater than D-Day after sustaining such a casualty rate is pure fiction (but the OP does mention this is an author - I’m thinking clearly an author of fiction, yes?) ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/11 "2012-11-01T20:00:36Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Insurgencies and resistance movement, guerilla warfare in general, have never been successful against invading armies. :dubious:I don’t know how many times I’ve mentioned this, lots of times in gun control threads for sure, but one more time won’t hurt. The goal of guerillas and insurgents fighting a “real” army that has tanks, helicopters, planes and such is never to engage that army on a battlefield. That is the army’s strength and you never attack your enemy’s strength. You attack his weakness. So, the insurgent uses his civilian arms and explosives to conduct assassinations, murders if you like that word better, among bureaucrats and their families. Among collaborators. Among occupying troops. Among police and their families. You don’t need to crush their army in the field. You just need to make the occupation so bloody, soul-destroyingly ugly, and expensive that they eventually declare victory and go home. Despite the fond beliefs of those who would eliminate possession of civilian arms, there are very few of us who are stupid enough to go out openly shooting at tanks, helicopter gunships, or squads of armed combat soldiers with our privately held arms. Basically yes. If the Soviets had landed an invasion force in Washington State and were moving inland, you probably wouldn’t have half of Seattle show up on a field a mile from town with a mishmash of Garands, 1911’s, AR-15’s, 12 gauge shotguns, old police 33 cal revolvers and other assorted weapons ready to fight an old-fashioned battle against trained Red Army soldiers with Kalashnikovs, mortars, grenades, a dozen tanks and 5 Hinds, _and working supply lines_. The Soviets would march into town and citizens would hide in buildings and pop off officers and run quick search and destroy missions to weaken the Soviets’ resources and morale. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/12 "2012-11-01T20:05:03Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > Now THAT’s going to be a stupid movie. North Korea? Could they even afford the gas to get here? ---
**Author:** ![emoticorpse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/22d042/32.png) [@emoticorpse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emoticorpse)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/13 "2012-11-01T20:06:27Z")
I believe they were prepared to waste that many people but worst case scenario, after the plausibility of ending things reasonably and in a major self defense on both sides. After all that I would think the radioactive mess alone would keep them off eachother’s soil. I mean they cleared out chernobyl pretty quick. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/14 "2012-11-01T21:22:54Z")
The Soviets, in general, did not believe limited nuclear wars could be contained: > [@Warner](#): > > ([U.S. War Plans Would Kill an Estimated 108 Million Soviets, 104 Million Chinese, and 2.6 Million Poles: More Evidence on SIOP-62 and the Origins of Overkill – UNREDACTED: The National Security Archive Blog](http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/u-s-war-plans-would-kill-an-estimated-108-million-soviets-104-million-chinese-and-2-3-million-poles-more-evidence-on-siop-62-and-the-origins-of-overkill/))] > The Soviet rejection of limited nuclear war almost certainly also reflects real doubts, strongly reinforced by the basic thrust of Soviet military doctrine, that any nuclear conflict, once begun, could actually be controlled. Over the years, the Soviets have come to emphasize two basic thresholds in warfare: that between peace and war and that between a war fought with conventional weapons and one in which nuclear weapons are employed. Their willingness to contemplate and plan for a major conventional conflict between the superpowers and their respective coalition partners has emerged gradually over the past 20 years. They have not adopted this new variant as a realistic planning contingency, however, at the expense of their extensive preparations for nuclear war. > > With regard to nuclear conflict, Soviet military doctrine continues to manifest a strong predisposition, once the nuclear threshold is crossed, to promptly employ massed nuclear strikes against military, economic, and political targets throughout the depth of NATO territory. This inclination is reinforced by the Soviet determination not to permit the enemy to execute what Stephen Meyer has called the “first decisive use” of nuclear weapons, a commitment that manifests itself in the strong Soviet interest in nuclear preemption.[sup]1[/sup] Not only did the Soviets know they didn’t have enough ships and transport aircraft to bring a ground force to the United States capable of accomplishing anything useful, they also knew it was unlikely that selective use of nuclear weapons would wind up anywhere short of a full nuclear war. The “author” mentioned in the OP is talking about fantasies, not reality. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/15 "2012-11-01T22:07:12Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > The idea that anyone, after such an exchange, is worried about how many of the remaining citizens have shotguns or pistols is silly. I’ll take it one step further. What is even sillier is that supposedly it’s not the largest, most powerful navy in the world, it’s not the most advanced air force, or the large supply lines that stretch across a vulnerable ocean deterred a Russian invasion. It’s untrained civilians with guns. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/16 "2012-11-01T22:19:45Z")
> [@trmptgn](#): > > I cannot find any information online to support the fact that the U.S. armed civilian population really deterred a nuclear attack. I could see it being a deterrent for an invasion, but again no evidence supports this that I can find. Staff officers plan for every scenario. The Pentagon will have battle plans for invading the Vatican, Monaco, and San Marino filed away somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/17 "2012-11-02T00:55:55Z")
> [@trmptgn](#): > > . . . and claimed after 1991 that their only non-diplomatic deterrent to nuclear war was their inability to eradicate the United States’ armed civilian population. Given that the Soviet Union was formally dissolved on December 26, 1991 I’d say there were other deterrents to its fighting a nuclear war. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/18 "2012-11-02T01:46:34Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Agreed. Incidentally, _Red Dawn_ is being remade, with North Korea as the invading enemy. > > Yeah, that’s plausible. It was originally going to be China. But the Chinese complained and the movie was changed. Which must have been tricky because they had already completed filming. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/19 "2012-11-02T02:08:50Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It was originally going to be China. But the Chinese complained and the movie was changed. Which must have been tricky because they had already completed filming. And movie makers give a darn what the Chinese think because…? ---
**Author:** ![Erdosain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/erdosain/32/7284_2.png) [@Erdosain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erdosain)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591/20 "2012-11-02T02:38:15Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > And movie makers give a darn what the Chinese think because…? The studio wants to sell a shitload of movies to the Chinese in the future? Or maybe wants China to start cracking down on piracy? Or wants to open a studio there? There are a million reasons why they could change their minds. I hope the dubbing is as bad as that Mohammed movie. “Let’s get these (North Korean) bastards!” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/armed-u-s-citizens-deterring-a-russian-nuclear-attack/639591.md?page=2)